Health department to cough up for besmirching doctor’s name
A judgement by Judge Hans-Joachim Fabricius awarded a doctor and former employee of the department of health R50 000 in damages in the North Gauteng high court in a defamation case late last year.
POLOKWANE – A judgement by Judge Hans-Joachim Fabricius awarded a doctor and former employee of the department of health R50 000 in damages in the North Gauteng high court in a defamation case late last year.
The department also has to pay the costs of the court case.
The case originated from defamatory statements made by a former CEO of the Pietersburg Provincial Hospital, Dr Sindiswa Khaobane, at a press conference in November 2010.
She called Dr Daniël du Plessis, a former head of the oncology clinic at the hospital disrespectful and unprofessional, and an individual with perverse interests to keep undermining and distorting the good work done in (the) department.
Her outburst resulted from an article published in Review earlier that month, in which he was referred to as the head of the oncology unit (instead of the clinic), stating the reasons for his resignation from the department were corrupt governance, the braindrain, managerial problems within the department, chronic medicine shortages, old and dysfunctional equipment, lack of discipline and holding people accountable for wrongdoing.
No evidence was led by the defendant and no apology was forthcoming from Khaobane regarding her statements, although she was afforded the opportunity to do so, which was described by the judge as an aggravating factor.
Fabricius said awards had to be made in the proper context and as a professional person a doctor’s professional reputation was of the utmost importance in the context of his employment.
These statements were made in an e-mail sent to several media houses and journalists, as well as uttered during a press conference and repeated in the defendant’s plea, without corrections made.
It was fairly defamatory, public, and the statements made reflected on his professional career and character and his good name was besmirched to a fairly wide audience, the judge said.
Fabricius said as a whole it constituted wrongful conduct. He referred to several decisions as to the nature of defamation and how the wrong could be made right and delivered the judgment in Du Plessis’ favour.
